DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 11, and 12, are objected to for failing to define the matter for which protection is
sought, failure to be clear and concise, and failure to be fully supported by the description.
Claim 11, A service package created using the method as claimed in claim 1, consisting of data from calculated models and compiled into a prediction model which is made available to network operators for their network operation, reads as claiming to be created by the method, but is in fact an apparatus claim, attempting to claim the output of the process without describing structure or additional elements. This is not supported by the description.
Claim 12, A business model for offering and commercially distributing calculated data from a prediction model as claimed in claim for a network operator, reads as claiming to be commercially distributing the model as a result of the method, but is in fact, a product or article of manufacture without describing structure or additional elements. This is not supported by the description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims disclose a series of “models” that provide “data” to enable “predictions” concerning the use of and anticipated charging needs of Electric Vehicles (EVs). The claims fail to disclose detail describing what each of the models provide, apart from the name of the respective model; detail on the data inputs that are used, apart from a broad categorical listing, and in some cases, no listing; and detail on what the final output of each model is, beyond the name of the model.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims disclose a series of “models” that provide “data” to enable “predictions” concerning the use of and anticipated charging needs of Electric Vehicles (EVs). The claims fail to disclose detail describing what each of the models provide, apart from the name of the respective model; detail on the data inputs that are used, apart from a broad categorical listing, and in some cases, no listing; and detail on what the final output of each model is, beyond the name of the model.
For example, claim 1 discloses a method for transferring data to a network operator for a prediction model. The claim continues, [ ] and the data and information from model calculations are used wherein, in addition to historical data, individual data of at least one user of an electric vehicle are included in the model calculation for the prediction. This claim fails to disclose an innovative concept for this method, the nature of the data and information inputs, the types of the calculations performed, or what is predicted as a result of the method.
Claim 2, referencing claim 1, adds that [ ] the data and information from model calculations are collected from an environment model, and a fleet model for a predefined network area, wherein the fleet model receives sub models from a customer preferences user model, a usage group model, a charging station model, a vehicle model and a driver model. The model listing is only useful as a list of categories of input.
Claims 3-10, again referencing claim 1, continue to list a variety of models contributing to the method, with detail and explanations on the order of, the customer preferences user model contains at least information about the use of the electric vehicle against time and the known and most likely driving routes, situational reactions to traffic events, and charging behavior data thereof, (claim 4), and wherein the usage group model is dynamically constructed by means of correlation of similar usage groups and/or similar user behavior, (claim 6). In each of these examples, the disclosures fail to provide a minimum amount of information to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to replicate the innovative elements of the invention. The explanations are vague and devoid of useful content. At a minimum, the models should describe their inputs, outputs, how they contribute to the overall function and purpose of the invention.
The specification does provide a top-level description of the prediction model in [0047-0050] but fails to elaborate on important technical detail necessary for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Descriptions appear to be at a level that one of ordinary skill in the art would likely consider obvious, for example:
“non-controllable generators as one factor in managing the scheduling of charging electric vehicles,” and [ ] “The prediction of the planned generation is highly dependent on the weather prediction models. For example, wind speed determines the electricity generation of wind turbines. Likewise, the electricity generation of solar systems varies depending on the irradiation duration, the intensity and the angle of incidence of the solar radiation,” [0050].
Since the specification fails to explain how the models are constructed or clearly define the models inputs and outputs, and the overall explanation of the invention is vague, it is unclear how the invention would be constructed, and is therefore determined to be indefinite.
Because the claims, 1-12 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claiming the subject
matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, the claims are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-12 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-10 are directed to a process (method), which is a statutory category of invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of statutory subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “service package created using the method as claimed in claim 1” encompasses software per se. The specification discloses, “The object is also achieved with a prediction model consisting of data from calculated models and compiled into a prediction model that is made available to network
operators for their grid operation, [0037].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of statutory subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “business model for offering and commercially distributing calculated data from a prediction model as claimed in claim 1” encompasses signals per se. The specification discloses, “The object is also achieved with a business model for offering and commercially distributing calculated data from a prediction model for a network operator,” [0038].
A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments
embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03(II).
It is suggested that claims 11-12 be amended to recite how an apparatus suggested in claim 11 and a medium in claim 12 are structured to deliver the disclosed products/outputs for network operators. Accordingly, Claims 11-12 are rejected for failing to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101
Step 2A
Claims 1-12 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of transferring data to a network operator for a prediction model, wherein there is a network operator interface and the data and information from model calculations are used for vehicle-to-grid optimization.
Claim 1 discloses a method, comprising: A method for transferring data to a network operator for a prediction model, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
wherein the data and information from model calculations are used, wherein, in addition to historical data, individual data of at least one end user of an electric vehicle are included in the model calculation for the prediction, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method to collect data from an environmental model and a fleet model for a network area, with the fleet model includes a customer preference user model, a usage group model, a charging station model, a vehicle model and a driver model, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - claim 2), and including current weather from the vehicles, the route of the vehicle, and road loading along the route, (claim 3), and the customer preference user model includes use of the vehicle against time, routes, response to traffic events and charging behavior, (claim 4), where data about charging behavior are recognized as a charging profile and data on preferences for charging points, distance from destination, adjustments based on charging time energy and power are included, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - claim 5), where the usage group model is constructed by means of correlation of similar usage groups and behavior, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - claim 6), and the charging station model provides weather, occupancy data, function and performance data, and type information of the charging stations, (claim 7), where the vehicle model is used for determining the state of charge at the end of a journey which is also based on a prediction, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - claim 8), and where the driver model allows a better estimate of energy consumption for determining the route and driving behavior, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, - claim 9), and where the fleet model aggregates the data of the individual models, user model, user group model, charging station model, vehicle model, and driver model to provide a prediction of power and energy demand for the future location, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - claim 10), and creating a service package consisting of the data from the calculated models and compiling into a prediction model made available to network operators, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - claim 11), and a business model offering and distributing data from the prediction model for an operator, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - claim 12).
Each of these claimed limitations involve organizing human activity, following rules or instructions, and employ mental processes involving observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-12 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-12 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a network operator interface, a customer interface, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-12 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-10 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For claims 11-12, a claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter, and claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Wang, (US 12221006 B2), hereafter Wang, “Management Methods and Systems for
Energy And Charging Requests Of an Electric Vehicle Charging Field,” in view of Sukkarie, (US 20130079964 A1), hereafter Sukkarie, “ Vehicle Communication, Analysis and Operation System.”
Regarding Claim 1, A method for transferring data to a network operator for a prediction model, Wang teaches, (In a management method for energy and charging requests of an electric vehicle charging field, first charging data corresponding to at least one first charging operation is first received by a server from each of electric vehicle charging stations in a charging field via a network during a first predetermined period, [ ], the server generates an energy prediction data of the charging field, [1:66-2: 4]), wherein there is a network operator interface, (data corresponding to at least one first charging operation is first received by a server, [ ], via a network during a first predetermined period, [Abstract]), and the data and information from model calculations are used, (the server generates an energy prediction data of the charging field in a second predetermined period, wherein the energy prediction data includes at least an energy consumption estimation of the charging field at a specific time point, [Abstract]), wherein, in addition to historical data, (the management methods and systems for energy and charging requests of the electric vehicle charging field of the present invention can predict the future energy prediction data by using the historical charging data of the charging field, and perform the charging request management based on the energy prediction data, [10:66-11:4]), individual data of at least one end user of an electric vehicle are included in the model calculation for the prediction Wang does not teach, Sukkarie teaches, (the vehicle
centric real time data may be used to manage a vehicle without dependence upon a real time link up. It can provide analysis based on sensor based operational data and this can be combined with user or system updated patterns. The real time communications system would include: data from vehicle centric vehicle; data from post processing database; data from third party systems; data from other vehicles, [0049]).
Wang and Sukkarie are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of EV data management and operations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the energy and charging management information of Wang with the vehicle data collection methods of Sabella to enable effective data management and provide useful real time predictive analytics, Sukkarie, [0009].
Regarding claim 11, A service package created using the method as claimed in claim 1, consisting of data from calculated models and compiled into a prediction model which is made available to network operators for their network operation. Wang teaches, Management methods for energy and charging requests of the electric vehicle charging field, may take the form of a program code (i.e., executable instructions) embodied in tangible media, such as floppy diskettes, CD-ROMS, hard drives, or any other machine-readable storage medium, wherein, when the program code is loaded into and executed by a machine, such as a computer, the machine thereby becomes an apparatus for executing the methods. The methods may also be embodied in the form of a program code transmitted over some transmission medium, such as electrical wiring or cabling, through fiber optics, or via any other form of transmission, wherein, when the program code is received and loaded into and executed by a machine, such as a computer, the machine becomes an apparatus for executing the disclosed methods. When implemented on a general-purpose processor, the program code combines with the processor to provide a unique apparatus that operates analogously to application specific logic circuits, Wang, [11:10-28]).
Regarding claim 12, A business model for offering and commercially distributing calculated data from a prediction model as claimed in claim for a network operator. Management methods for energy and charging requests of the electric vehicle charging field [11: 10-11], [ ] may also be embodied in the form of a program code transmitted over some transmission medium, such as electrical wiring or cabling, through fiber optics, or via any other form of transmission, wherein, when the program code is received and loaded into and executed by a machine, such as a computer, the machine becomes an apparatus for executing the disclosed methods. When implemented on a general-purpose processor, the program code combines with the processor to provide a unique apparatus that operates analogously to application specific logic circuits, Wang, [11: 19-28]).
Conclusion
Claims 2-10 are not rejected with art because Claims 2-10 are severely vague and deficient, and in their current state it is not feasible to map prior art to these claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624